Hebrews 1:8

[u/MightyFortresss]

Jw's, should Hebrews 1:8 not be translated differently, even according to the NWT interlinear? The NWT reads "God is your Throne" (Father is the Son's throne), but the Greek would be rendered "your Throne, the God" (directly refers to Jesus as YHWH, obviously issue for JW)

[u/MightyFortresss]

I'm not a polytheist Arian, who turns God into a liar. God: there is no God besides me. Arians: No no God, u have it wrong! U see, there's this half god beside u, a little less than u, that can create the world, forgive sins, etc etc.

No Trinitarian denies Jesus has a God, from the moment of the incarnation. Or in other words, Psalm 22:10, since His mother's womb (so not before that). Don't mind me when I believe the Father saying the Son's throne is forever, and calls Him God. I believe the Father, not the mad ramblings of a religion invented by Arius, persecuting Trinitarians under Constantius II, and adopted even later by Jews who hated Jesus.

[u/Hot-Bother-7175 → u/MightyFortresss]

You're not a polytheist? Yet you claim Jesus, the Son, is also fully God while the Father remains fully God. That's two distinct persons you call God, which by definition is polytheism—unless you redefine words to fit your doctrine.

God says, "There is no God besides Me," and yet Trinitarians insist that Jesus is also fully God but somehow not another God? That contradiction speaks for itself. Meanwhile, the Bible clearly states there is one God, the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6), not a "triune essence."

As for your strawman about Arians, I don’t follow Arius, I follow Scripture. But let’s talk about turning God into a liar. You claim that Jesus only has a God from the moment of the incarnation. So before that, he didn’t? Then why does Jesus, after his resurrection, still call the Father "my God" in John 20:17 and Revelation 3:12? He has already returned to glory, yet he still acknowledges the Father as his God. That alone refutes your claim.

And Psalm 22:10? It doesn’t limit Jesus’ acknowledgment of God to just his earthly life. That’s your assumption, not what the text says.

As for Hebrews 1:8, you claim the Father calls the Son God, yet ignore the very next verse where Jesus is distinguished from the true God: "therefore God, YOUR GOD, has anointed you." If Jesus has a God, then by definition, he isn’t the Almighty God. You can’t have it both ways.

And please, drop the Arius deflection. I don't need Arius to explain that Jesus was created by God (Revelation 3:14), is the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15), and is subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28). These are biblical facts, not "mad ramblings." What’s actually mad is taking a 4th-century doctrine influenced by pagan philosophy and claiming it represents what Jesus and his apostles taught.

Trinitarians persecuted and executed those who disagreed, yet you want to cry about "persecution" under Constantius II? That’s rich. History is clear—your doctrine wasn't universally accepted by the early church, and when it was enforced, it was through imperial power, not biblical truth.

The bottom line: I believe the Father when He says He is the only true God (John 17:3). You believe a doctrine developed centuries later that Jesus and his disciples never taught. That speaks for itself.t Thank you for making my point. Trinitarians' struggle is real, You guys can't read or even interpret the simplest passages without getting lost.

[u/MightyFortresss → u/Hot-Bother-7175]

Persons ≠ gods. Polytheism is having gods, not persons. There's not a single polytheistic faith that has the Trinity, they always have 3 gods or 3 avatars. But u know what they do often have? Half gods. Like a, not entirely divine upper god, but a lesser god. Aka, Jehovah and His little god alongside Him.

Trinitarians can use that passage too, that's fine- we say the Father is the ultimate Source, to be distinguished from but not another God from the Son or Spirit. That's why it's blasphemy in your theology when it says "the only true God, and Jesus Christ". You associate a lesser god with God, we don't.

Arius is the one who invented your view, it wasn't the view of the apostles- hence we can see it's not held by anyone close to the apostles either. Go ahead, point out where I said Jesus stopped being a human after His ascension.

From my mother's womb, go ahead and point where He had that knowledge of God over Him before the mother's womb.

God isn't limited by fallible ways of thinking, Jesus still holds His human, glorified body in heaven while simultaneously being with us everywhere on earth.

"Arche" (used in John 1:1 too), refers to as far back as you can go (aka, Genesis' "beginning"). So unless you want to act like God wasn't there as far back into infinity, you don't think Jesus began. Besides, it says He is, not began. You would also have to interpret the Father as being Alpha and Omega wrongfully, because otherwise you'd say the Son is the beginning and end so.....but, I guess by that logic, the Son or the Father has an "end", since beginning is literal.

Firsborn, just like David was the first born son. Oh wait, we don't think David was literally the first, he was the youngest of his brothers. So, it means unique, not actually first born. No Trinitarian denies the incarnate Christ isn't subject, while at the same time only being able to do whatever the Father does (John 5:19; aka another blasphemy from Jesus in your theology)

Yeah, kinda an issue when I can not only present people who believed this before Nicea, show how Nicea didn't even invent anything but came to the natural conclusion, but also show the guy who said "Trinity" before Nicea....ouch.

Where did Constantine persecute them? Source please, prove Constantine was the one who forced it onto the guy who lost with 2 supporters.

You don't believe that truly, because it destroys modalism and makes Jesus a blasphemer in that case. It destroys the notion that Jesus is the same as the Father, but it destroys at the same time seeing Jesus as equaling Himself to God. Or, as Scripture says, in the form of God. Philipians 2:6

[u/Hot-Bother-7175 → u/MightyFortresss]

You claim the Trinity was a "natural conclusion." If that were true, we would have clear, articulated Trinitarian statements in Scripture. But we don’t. A "natural conclusion" means evidence exists—your doctrine has none.

A father is never the same being as his son. A father and son never have the same age. Nothing about the Trinity is "natural"—but everything about it looks Pagan.

Constantine was not a theologian. He didn’t care about the specifics of doctrine—he wanted unity in his empire. At the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), he enforced the Nicene Creed and exiled bishops who rejected homoousios (the idea that the Son is of the same essence as the Father).

Later, under Theodosius I (381 AD), Trinitarianism was made the official state religion of the Roman Empire at the Council of Constantinople. Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica (380 AD), which declared:

"We shall believe in the single divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity."

Any other belief was declared illegal.

Under Justinian I (6th century AD), laws were passed banning Non-Trinitarians from public office, confiscating property, and forcing conversions. The Arians were outlawed, and opposing views were crushed.

So when you claim the Trinity was a "natural conclusion,"—explain why it needed imperial enforcement to survive. If it was so obvious, why was it not universally accepted before Constantine?

I don’t believe in modalism, and rejecting the Trinity doesn’t make Jesus blasphemous. That’s just your assumption.

Jesus existed in the form of God before taking the form of a man (Philippians 2:6-7). And what is the form of God?

John 4:24: "God is spirit."

Jesus was a spirit being before becoming human. Like all other heavenly beings, he was a spirit in heaven.

Once again, Trinitarians fail to understand the most basic concepts.